Inappropriate Field Trips

Sometimes I think it'd be kind of nice if those who were morons had to wear a sign letting others know that they're morons. It saves others the trouble of having to find it out through some sort of unfortunate event orchestrated by said moron. Even if that were the case, I don't think that there would be enough of the signs to go around to everyone in this story who deserves them. And there are several. Where to begin, where to begin?

I guess we could start in Dayton, Ohio where, according to WCPO-9 reports that a first year high school marketing teacher has resigned after taking four female students on a rather inappropriate field trip. To a gay male strip bar called Club Masque. Oh, yeah, and they managed to get served alcohol while they were there. (Happy Hour is from 5-7.) Um, what was that?

Holy crap! When I was in high school, I kind of remember that we went to a museum once. I definitely remember we did not go to a gay male strip club. That did not happen during my high school years. (Now that I think about things, it might be one of the very few things that didn't happen during high school. What can I say? I spent a lot of time venturing outside the confines of the institutional learning environment. Future, shmuture, it was totally worth it.)

Who does this? Well, let's start with the students. Can you blame them for getting to go to a bar? WITH their teacher? I don't think you can. There were four of them and 3 were 18 and the other one was 17. Nope. Can't blame them at all for wanting to go to a bar. Wanting to go to a gay men's strip club? That might be one worth looking into. But I suppose if they just wanted to check out some slippery young guys who weren't going to be hitting on them, a gay men's strip club is just the place for that.

Now, the teacher is a 47-year old (and definitely old enough to know better) one Lori Epperson. (I have looked all through the tubes that make up the Internets and I could not find a picture of this chick. Thanks, mainstream media. Thanks for that.) She resigned on Thursday after being placed on paid leave. (Paid leave. One of the strangest punishments of all time. "We're not making you come to work, rather, we're making you not come to work AND we're still going to pay you! I hope you've learned a lesson!" I'd say! I've learned to do things that get me paid leave more often! How cool is that?!) She fully admits that she took the students to the club and she also fully admits that, in hindsight, it was not the most brilliant move of her brand new academic career.

In a letter that she wrote to her supervisors, she explained that it was the students who had wanted to go to the bar. She wrote "...that she didn't agree with the girls wanting to go to the gay establishment, but if they were to go, she thought she should go with them." I see. That seems like an odd choice to make, being as how Epperson was supposed to be the adult in this scenario.

Oh, but I shouldn't get all judgmental on her and just assume that she's irresponsible or mentally challenged or anything like that. She took precautions before chaperoning this escapade. She wrote in her letter, "I talked with their parents to get permission which they did give. I assured them there would not be any drinking. I also made it very clear to the girls there would not be any drinking. They agreed." Oh, for cryin' out loud? Really?

Really. Good thing that you made it clear with the girls that they weren't to drink. Sure. That's going to happen. Yeah, it didn't. But there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how the girls, one of whom was Epperson's daughter ( ::::sigh:::: ), managed to consume shots and cosmopolitans. (Were they playing 'Sex in the City'? Cosmos?) She wrote that "...the girls asked to go to a different part of the bar and when she went to look for them they had run into someone they knew...that person gave the girls shots and cosmopolitans. When she learned what happened she immediately took the teenagers home."

So, you take four students to a gay male strip club that serves alcohol because you feel if they're going to go there anyway, that you should go with them to...what? Keep them in line? Look out for them? Whichever or whatever it was, letting them roam freely about the bar was not going to accomplish your goal or whatever you call it. Because as we all know, any teenager who says that they're not going to drink alcohol when they've just been taken to a bar isn't going to drink alcohol.

As long as you're looking.

But enough about the Teacher of the Year for a moment. Can we just go back to the part about how she talked to their parents and got permission? I'm having a hard time believing that really occurred unless she was speaking strictly about herself. After all, one of the girls was her daughter! She could have had a full blown conversation with herself and gave herself permission to take her own daughter to a gay male strip club. Yeah, that's it. That counts (in her world) as "talking with their parents". Sure it does.

But at least she gets it right in her letter where she says, "I accept the consequences and believe I should not be in the environment where I make a negative impression on kids." And you are correct. You should definitely not be in that environment. And I'd like to commend her for figuring this out before she had even completed her first full year of teaching. No sense in wasting everyone's time. Get it over with and get out at the beginning. Perfect.

I've never really understood it when teacher (or just adults) want to be "friends" with their students, or with kids in general. Friendly, I get. Friends? Not so much. (Those of you who know me personally can just pipe down. I can hear you laughing from here, so knock it off!) Students, kids, they both have plenty of friends. They don't need any more friends. What they need are people who can set a decent example for them and who can be someone that they can trust if they need someone to talk to or if they need someone to not take them to a gay male strip club.

But you know, with all of the other stories that you tend to hear in the news these days, I guess I should just be thankful that she didn't have sex with any of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Unnecessary, But Needed Policies

Today's story of stating the obvious via new rules and regulations comes to us from Utah and the Canyons School District where, according to the fine folks over there at the Salt Lake Tribune, the superintendent of said school district is "...considering drafting strict rules that should keep teachers from ever having inappropriate relationships with students." I don't know whether I should be beating my head against a wall because something like this should be unnecessary or if I should be beating my head against a wall because something like this IS necessary. Either way, I'm going to have a headache by the end of this post.

According to the superintendent, a one David Doty, "In order to really prevent [sexual relations between teachers and students] from happening, you've got to draw the line way back from physical contact, but draw the lines in a way that they're not so rigid that people feel like they can't have any kind of meaningful interaction with students." Now my question is "Don't we already have a line?" And if we don't, "What happened to that line?" But probably my most pressing question to that statement is, "Where are people getting confused?"

While I agree with the man that you've got to draw the line way back from physical contact, I think I don't believe his assertion that drawing those lines will "really prevent sexual relations between teachers and students from happening." I have yet to hear any of the teachers that are caught having "inappropriate relationships" with their students (Translation: Having sex with 14 & 15 year old boys.) say that they went ahead with all of the sex because there was no line. There is a line. There is a HUGE line. There always HAS been a line. But for some reason, it seems as if there is a more frequent occurrence of people not giving a fat rat's ass about the line and therefore jumping right on over the line and into bed with an adolescent male. (The adolescent male, by the way, is the one who cares the absolute least about the line. To him, having sex with his teacher is not crossing the line. In that example, the line is very far away. The line is so far away, the line is a dot to the 15 year old guy who is banging his teacher.)

Superintendent Doty continued with "Such cases [of sexual misconduct] are rare, but I feel very strongly that if there's one thing schools should have zero tolerance for, it is inappropriate physical and emotional relationships between students and teachers." Well, YES! In fact, if there's one thing EVERYONE should have zero tolerance for, it is inappropriate physical and emotional relationships between children and adults...PERIOD! And if they were as "rare" as he tries to make them sound, I don't know that he would be spending a whole lot of time on crafting new policy to address such an issue because they are...wait for it....rare, that is correct!

It's not like policies that define what a teacher's role should be and what activities a teacher should refrain from engaging in are new. "Many districts....have policies in place that prohibit teachers from giving rides to students, dining off-campus with students, or hosting activities in their home or off-campus without prior permission from the school principal." Um, hey. Wait a minute. "Hosting activities in their home"?? You know, I've taught classes before. Let me tell you, the last thing I would ever consider doing, not to mention want to do is to have my students in my freaking house! NO way! Never. Since when did that become an issue?? And what is with "Without prior permission from the school principal"?? I don't think there should be circumstances where a teacher is hosting some sort of a function for his or her students at their home ever, even with permission! You shouldn't be asking for permission because you shouldn't want to have your students at your home. They have their own homes! They can go there. (I can see that whatever policy he comes up with will be strong! Sure. It will solve everything! What could possibly go wrong?)

"Policies regarding gifts, e-mail, text messages and other electronic communication such as social profiles on the Internet, however, are new to most districts....At the same time, crafting policy should reflect technological innovation in communications. "You've got to look at personal e-mail, texts and MySpace communications with students." Again, why would a teacher want to do or participate in the majority of those? A teacher has a school email address and the students can email the teacher at that email address. (The cool thing about the Internet is that all of those tubes and pipes and things that connect it all together make it so you can check your email anywhere at anytime. How convenient!) I do not recall being in high school and having some pressing need to get in contact with one of my teachers immediately. (Well, not while I was in high school. After I was out? That's a story for a different day!) Why would a student and a teacher need to be texting? And if you're a teacher and you're leaving comments on your student's MySpace pages, you need to stop doing that. Now. And if you're not willing to stop doing that, you need to quit. Now.

But here is where things really start to get weird. A one Carol Lear, who is the director of law and legislation (in schools) for the State Office of Education, has said "...that while every Utah school district should review teacher-student conduct policies, many are problematic for schools where the teacher may live among students. Teacher proximity to students can be hard to control, let alone monitor." What the hell does that mean? "...the teacher may live among students"? Is this some sort of weird communal school? OK, granted, it is Utah. But I lived in Utah for 20 years and I don't recall any educational communes where the teachers and students mingled freely and lived amongst each other. Does she mean "in the same community"? Because if that is what she is referring to, I see no problem with that. Yes, teachers may live in the same city as their students! And you know what else? They may do so and NOT have sex with their students! Shocking, I know! And that woman is in charge of....stuff? That might not be the best idea. I see a hypervigilant policy being unveiled in the near future.

She also says that "Many ideas sound like really great absolutes, but they have to be looked at in the context of communities and the circumstances of where the teacher lives and works." Again, what? The context of where a teacher lives in proximity to where his or her students lives has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the teacher is able to maintain an appropriate relationship with his or her students. NOTHING. The key part of a teacher not having sex with a student is self control! Not proximity! Not community! Self control.

And this is the part of the article where I realized that my world and Carol Lear's world are two very different lands. She said, "Because their social circle is often limited to the students they teach, many teachers become close friends with some students, then become so comfortable around them they forget ethical boundaries." Um, since when? Since when is a teacher's social circle "often limited to the students they teach"? I saw none of my students at the bar I went to after work to drink my sorrows away. No students there. That circle was student-free! As was my home, my car, my friend's homes, and everywhere else that wasn't work. No students! (Thank God!)

"Unless they're always vigilant, it can happen. It's not always the case that these teachers are pedophiles or psychos. Many times it's the nature of schools, and the fact that you relate to the people you're with all the time." The people I am with all the time are adults! And even when you're teaching kids, if you would rather be with those kids than with adults that are your age, there is a problem and you should not be teaching. It is not the fault of the schools that inappropriate student-teacher relationships develop. It is the fault of the teacher. That's it. It doesn't go any further than that. (Can you really fault a teenage boy for having consensual sex with his hot, hot, Algebra teacher? No way. Can you fault a hot, hot Algebra teacher for having sex with a student currently in her class? (Just had to clarify that part there.) Yes, you can fault her for that. Again, she's the what? No, not the whore! She's the adult. The ADULT. What is wrong with people?

That last quote from the misguided state worker there makes it sound like it is sooooo difficult for a teacher to not have sex with a student. Me, personally, that was probably the easiest part of my job that was always, ALWAYS left unsaid. Do not have sex with the students. OK! No problem! And it wasn't!

She's right that they all may not be pedophiles or psychos. (I would hope that the number of teachers caught engaging in this sort of behavior would NOT be "psychos", as I would want to know exactly how it came to be that the "psycho" was hired to teach at that school in the first place. I prefer schools have a "psycho-free teacher" policy firmly in place at the beginning of each school year.) But she also seems to think that having regulations and rules and policies that are strongly worded and placed into State Office of Education policies will solve the problem. It's as if she envisions specific terms defining what an "inappropriate relationship" between a teacher and a student consists of (Here's a hint: If sex is involved, it's inappropriate.) and that will solve everything! (Does she really think that a teacher might think, "Wow. That student in my second period class is really, really cute! If only it weren't for those pesky rules and regulations over there in that big thick binder! I guess I'd better not do that because the rules say not to. Darn." I don't think that's going to happen. Ever!)

I think more than anything, I'm just sad that there needs to be a policy that specifically addresses appropriate boundaries between students and teachers because either the lines have become so blurred that teachers don't know where one role stops and where another one fails to start, or too many teachers just don't care about the lines at all. And if that's what needs to be done (mainly for legal reasons, as I don't see many practical ones for it), then I'm certainly not against it. But if anyone has ridiculous expectations that a "policy" is going to change the behavior of those who would otherwise have such behavior, well, those people are in for quite a shock when that doesn't happen. If a "policy" was an actual deterrent, wouldn't cities have less crime (as a city's "policies" of what to do and what not to do are otherwise known as "laws")? Of course. But things like "policies" only work to curb undesirable behaviors in those individuals who wouldn't have had the behavior in the first place. And if that's the case, I don't know that I can actually say that it "works" at all.

For God's sake, just don't sleep with you students!! Just don't!! I don't think that I need to go into much more detail as to WHY NOT! Just don't!! And stop it!! Now!! (And put that thing away, will you? Geez! God sees everything, you know?)

I was right. My head does hurt.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Snogging The Students

Now granted, all of those female teachers (in Florida, mostly) who have been busted for having sex with their male students (and not just for extra credit, either!) were totally in the wrong. I, for one, can think of NO reason for an adult woman to sleep with a teenage boy. I mean, have you been around many "men" lately? For the most part, they all ACT like teenage boys. If that's what you're into, no need to go about it literally and nail that paperboy in the third row, ladies. Just go to a bar and pick up some dude. Trust me, it'll be the same! The only difference (if you're lucky) is that you won't have to drive him home when you're done.

But I am from a different school of thought than those that make up the NASUWT over there in the slowly, but surely, getting wackier by the minute UK. NASUWT, which forms an acronym that is difficult, if not impossible to pronounce as a word, (which is the main point of the acronym. It's not just to shorten, it's to inject a little bit of fun into the doldrums of everyday speech.) stands for National Union of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. I suppose they didn't go with just the National Union of Teachers/Schoolmasters because then the acronym would be NUTS. And while not exactly the most complimentary acronym for the group, believe me, it's pretty accurate.

According to some folks who I am assuming are British and over there across the pond at News of the World, "The NASUWT says it is UNFAIR to treat teachers who have affairs with students who are over 16 as sex offenders, insisting all they are guilty of is an “error of professional judgement." (That rumbling sound you hear is all of those female teachers in Florida rushing to pack up their belongings and hop on the next flight to the UK.) Wait. WHAT?

Oh, it gets better. "In 2001 it became illegal for teachers to have any intimate or sexual affair with any pupil in their school under 18." In two thousand freaking ONE that became illegal? I wasn't already illegal BEFORE then? You know, considering how snotty a lot of Brits are, they sure don't act all that uptight about stuff if this is any indication.

The secretary of the NASUWT, a one Chris Keates, told the Tonight show (not the one with Leno. The one in the UK with that British dude that hosts it.) that the rules and laws that forbid teachers from doing their students (though, over in the UK, because they have to have some weird ass name for everything, they call it 'snogging'. Pretty.) aren't "fair" because a student could be 18. Now, the student could also NOT be 18, but she says that since they COULD, then they can consent and it shouldn't be a problem. She elaborates on this idiocy by saying, "It does seem a step too far — when there has been a consensual relationship — to put that person on a sex offenders register when, in fact, they could have a perfectly legitimate relationship with an 18- year-old still enrolled at another school."

When there has been a consensual relationship? You show me a 14, 15, or 16 year old boy who is NOT going to consent to having sex with his female teacher. One. Just one! Look, let me save you time. You won't find one! Not one! Do you really think that a boy who is in junior high or high school is going to turn down ANY sex? The only reason they're not running around trying to hump stranger's legs is because it's not socially acceptable. They'd be 'snogging' themselves if they could. But they are certainly not turning down ANY sex especially that with their teacher. It will always be consensual. Regardless as to what they say YEARS later.

Take a one Dean Dainty for instance. (Dude. Name change.) He was a-snoggin' his drama teacher (well, that's some drama for ya right there), a one Nicola Prentice when he was 16. He even says that the relationship, which took place back in 2005, was consensual. He does not agree with the position of the NASUWT because he says that sex with the drama teacher "...took a piece of my life away really." Well, of course it did! It took away that part of your life where you weren't having any sex and replaced it with that part of your life where you were having all the sex. There's a pic of Dean below. Is it just me, or does he look like he's wearing a prison jumpsuit there? (Perhaps she also took that piece of his life that contained fashion sense as well.)

Dainty Dean also said, "It took me a long time to get myself back together" after the relationship (which started when Prentice gave him a cell phone (with only one number on it - hers!) for doing well in class. She then started sending him sexually explicit text messages. A cell phone for doing well in drama class?? What does that consist of? Showing up every day?). Again, of course it took you a while to get yourself back together. You had to get used to not having all of the sex. It's a tough adjustment to go from the sex to not the sex. Verrrrrry tough. Believe me. Oh, it gets easier, but not that easy.

And what became of Ms. Prentice. Well, she avoided jail time. The judge in the case felt that she had been punished enough, having lost her teaching position and all. The judge came to this decision after reading a note from Mr. Dainty's mother which expressed that same sentiment. Oh, man. Showing up in court with a note from Mom? That can't be good can it? It's definitely ironic or cliche or something like that. Perhaps ironic. Yeah, there's definitely some irony in that somewhere.

Look, I can't think of any situation in which I think that it would be perfectly OK for a teacher to have sex with her student (or students, depending on how ambitious she is). And there is no way that you can say that it's perfectly OK because the student MIGHT be 18. There's a higher chance that they will NOT be 18. But 18 or not, the kid is going to enjoy the hell out of it. And I'm sure they'll recover. The fact that there is a teacher's union for women that is advocating in favor of relaxing the rules banning teacher-student sex is absurd. Talk about asking for trouble.

Seriously, Ms. Keates, what is wrong with you? Why would you be for advocating what amounts to giving the green light for teachers and their....students....to....be....snogg.....oh. Oh. I see. It's like that is it? Perhaps, in the future, you might want to considering using just a wee bit more discretion regarding situations that may or may not personally pertain to you. Or to you and any student who may or may not be under 18 that you are currently snogging. Just use some discretion. And for God's sake, get off of him!

Sphere: Related Content

Teacher-Student Sex Story, Number...Oh, I Lost Count

Delving back into the world where hot female teachers have sex with their young male students (that world is otherwise known as "Florida"), Stephanie Ragusa is back in the "news". (I use the term "news" very loosely, as the term itself has been regulated to mean "anything in print or on the Internet".) For those of you who prefer to think that female high school teachers do NOT have sex with their young male students on a regular basis, allow me to bring you up to speed. (The training camp for such behavior appears to be the entire state of Florida, but especially Hillsborough County which has seen more than it's share of arrests in the teacher-having-sex-with-their-underage-students genre. The photo below shows four of these individuals, all arrested for the same thing within weeks of each other.)

Ragusa (no relation to Carmine) was arrested on March 13 and charged with having sex at least three times (probably more) with a 14-year old male student. She was then released on bail and, you guessed it, arrested again and charged with, you guessed it, having sex with another male student, this one a much more mature 15-years old. And since the third time's a charm, Ragusa was arrested again, two weeks after her second arrest because she went over the the 15-year old's house and, you guessed, had sex with him. Yeah, that third arrest led the judge to think that her bail should probably be revoked. So it was. And so she has sat in the jail in Florida since then. You're now caught up. Welcome.

All in all, this woman (who really gave her students a reason to show up for class day in and day out I would imagine) ended up with five counts of lewd and lascivious battery (I'm not sure what the "battery" would involve. Unless it's to power some sort of motorized, um, toy. But I can't see that being against the law, really. So it must be something else.), four counts of lewd and lascivious molestation (by the way, the term "lascivious" is defined as "intense or unbridled sexual desire". Yep, that sums it up pretty well.), four counts of unlawful sex with a minor (this is apparently different than the molesting and the battery-ing) and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. (TWO counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! TWO?!?! So, of the FOUR counts of "lewd and lascivious behavior", only TWO of them contributed to the delinquency of a minor? And what? The other TWO contributed to the rites of passage into manhood? Why only TWO?)

For some reason, those over at the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office released a bunch of pictures of Stephanie Ragusa's tattoos. The folks over there at TampaBays10.com called the photos "revealing", as in "they released a bunch of revealing photos". Um, they're tattoos. It is where they're located that makes them "revealing"? It is what the tattoos depict that make them "revealing"? Or is it the fact that they showed (aka, revealed) the photos that make them revealing? Uh, yeah, that one. Morons.

The boys were apparently able to identify the tattoos that she sports. I guess that since you can't readily see the tattoos unless certain articles of clothing were removed ("certain articles" meaning "all" or "most"), the fact that the boys knew what the tattoos were seems to indicate they were able to be in a position (or positions, as it would seem) to view the tattoos.

The pictures of the tattoos show that one is a (get ready for this) a ladybug, yes. a ladybug on the left side of her stomach! On the right side of her stomach she has (again, prepare yourself) a flower, yes, a flower! Woo-boy! What else? What else could there be?! Oh, come on! You KNOW, you just KNOW she has a tramp stamp. You just don't know what it is. Yet. It's a lizard. See? Now you know.

And, look, I know that teachers don't make a whole hell of a lot of money. But if you're going to get a tattoo, at least shell out a little bit of cheese so that they look halfway decent. Those look like hell. It really doesn't help your lewd and lascivious image when you have crappy tattoos.

I still don't know why they felt the need to whip these photos out. I mean, the tramp is in the news again for another reason (one not too far from why she was in the news in the first place), but it doesn't really relate to the tattoos.

Apparently, being in jail for so long has really put a damper on Ragusa's burning desires to have some kind of contact with young males. Quite the dilemma she has there. I wonder what she noodled through to do about it. "What to do? What to do? I know! I'll write a letter to Nick Bollea! He's a male! He's young! He's in jail! It's PERFECT!" You will? It is? Wait. What?

Nick Bollea is Nick Hogan, son of Hulk. (but not THE Hulk. The Hulk is the big green guy. Hulk Hogan is the 'roided up, old, WWF guy.) Nick is sitting in the Pinellas County jail for 8 months as he serves a sentence for his role in a reckless driving charge, to which he pled no contest. Oh, and of course, Nick is 17. He will be 18 on July 27. Is anyone surprised he's not a legal adult and she is writing to him? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Of course we're not surprised! We might be a little surprised that she actually went through with it and mailed the letter after coming up with this ingenious plan, but we're not surprised in the slightest that it popped into her horny head. From the sleazy folks over there at TMZ, here is the text of her letter to Nick. (Sorry about the 'sleazy' tag there, TMZ, but come on. You know it's true. But I love you anyway, so who cares?)

Nick,
We don't know each other, but we are both in similar situations with the media and a high degree of public scrutiny. If you are anything like me, I'm sure you receive tons of "fan mail" each day from total strangers who say pretty much anything you can think of. I just want you to know that you are not alone.
And for what it is worth, I can sympathize with the dynamics of your case, esp. in light of the public. It's not us, Nick, but something "off" with society, that our situations garner more attention and print than the President, the election, or even an earthquake killing thousands.
Nothing prepares you for nor prevents it; sensationalism. I have only been here 1 month in administrative confinement, due entirely to my case's "high profile status." I've honestly, not been following your case, except in hearing that our names are mentioned frequently on the news.
Keep your head up and never lose sight of the light at the end of the tunnel. You have more people support and pulling for you than you will ever know. I believe the character of an individual is measured over the long haul. And I have no doubt that you will rise above your current surroundings having experienced a personal inner growth known only to yourself in those many hours of isolation.
You remain in my prayers,
Stephanie Ragusa

Well, she started off OK and then she sort of lost her chain of thought a bit. She also should have probably paid a bit more attention to whatever "news" she keeps hearing where both of their names are bandied about, as he has been moved from his segregated cell into another one which he shares with three other juveniles. This occurred on June 5, 2008.

There's something just not quite right about this woman. I think maybe she had her head banged a bit too hard on the ol' headboard one too many times. Regardless, jail seems like an appropriate place for her at the moment. No headboards in there.

Sphere: Related Content

Third Time's Alarming

What's that saying? First time, shame on you; second time, shame on me? It's something like that. So if that covers the first and the second time, what do you do the third time? Well, if you're Stephanie Ragusa of Tampa, FL, you just repeat the first and second time again. So, how would that go? Oh, that's right....have sex with underage boy, get arrested; have sex with underage boy, get arrested; have sex with underage boy, get arrested. Oh, and please try and do all of this within a 6 week time frame. WTF?!

Ragusa, 29, was arrested for the third time within the past 6 weeks and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. Would it surprise you to know that she was a middle school teacher in Tampa in January of 2007? Of course it wouldn't. Though it might surprise you to learn that's when she struck up a relationship with a 14 year old student that apparently carried on until March 13, 2008 when she was arrested and charged with having sex with a minor. (That kind of surprised me. Well, until I put it in perspective, that is. I mean, a 14-year old boy isn't really consistent with much. But if he was able to sleep with his teacher? That would speed up the ol' consistency development a little bit now, wouldn't it?)

In February of that same year, she struck up a relationship with another student. But she was trying to go for the more mature students and chose one that was 15-years old this time. And again, the consistency development sped right up in that lad as well and they went at it until she was arrested for the second time on April 15 and charged with (surprise!) having sex with a(nother) minor. (Why does the phrase "lather, rinse, repeat" keep popping into my head?)

Let's see, so between March 13th and April 15th would be 33 days. 33 days she was able to go without getting caught having sex with a minor. That must have been a fluke because on April 28, not even 2 weeks after the second arrest, she was arrested for a third time (as she was coming out of the boy's house at the same time the detective arrived to speak to the boy about the case. Awkward.). And, since consistency would be the theme of this twisted saga, she was charged with having sex with a minor. There might not be a fourth time, as she is in jail waiting a bail hearing. See, when you're already out on bail and then you do the same boneheaded thing again and, oh, yeah, again they tend to not want to let you out on bail anymore. So she's sitting in jail away from teenage boys and awaiting a bail hearing while her lawyers use the time "to prepare". (Prepare themselves or prepare her defense is what I'd like to know.)

Among some of the evidence that tends to point to her being guilty of really enjoying sex with teenage boys would be the cell phone video that one of the boy's friends took of Ragusa and the boy while they were kissing after they had emerged from a bedroom in the boy's house after having sex. Huh? I don't know that I'd be all that big on having one of my friends take a video of me with their cell phone as I'm making out with someone else. I mean, I know I'm not a teenage boy, but I think that's a little odd.

But I don't think it's as odd as the "love notes and gifts" one of the boys said that he had received from Ragusa as well as "a last will and testament that was signed by Ragusa." OK, that's it. WTF? I can overlook the love notes and gifts. (I wonder what she gave him. Directions to her house? Condoms? These little details are always left out!) But I'm having a bit of difficulty noodling through the handwritten will that she's putting in the hands of a 15-year old boy. What was she planning on leaving him? Her orange jumpsuit?

Hopefully, this woman will be able to take a few cold showers while she's in jail awaiting a bail hearing that may or may not take place any time soon. Actually, a good long soak in a tub full of ice might do her some good also. But really, I don't see this ending well for ol' Stephanie there. (I mean, if we're going strictly by the pictures here, she doesn't exactly look upset or anything. Granted, she's probably not enjoying herself as much as when she was having all of the teenager sex, but she doesn't look distraught.) No, I'm seeing more of a 7 years in jail a la Mary Kay Letourneau ending for this one. (Granted, Mary Kay ended up marrying her child sex partner, but that was AFTER the 7 years in jail. See, it just doesn't seem worth it when you put it like that, does it?) Especially if things are starting to catch up to this chick, as it would appear that they are. I mean, she can go over a year having sex with not one, but TWO underage boys and not get caught and then BAM! (and BAM! BAM!) She gets busted three times within 6 weeks. If that's not karma catching up with you, I don't know what is.

Sphere: Related Content